Hmm, that's a questionable decision too. On first viewing, I thought Dumfries was interfering with play, but having seen it again, I'm not convinced he was.
I guess the difference with this check compared to the others so far in the tournament is that there wasn't a question of whether the player was offside in this case, but a subjective decision needed to be made. For me though, they should have the ref going straight over to the monitor, as soon as he's made the call, and then ask him to decide whether he agrees with his decision or not, instead of having someone in a van looking at it fir 4 minutes.
Maybe. If it takes more than 1 min on a timer, benefit of doubt should be given to the attacking team. But then I guess how do you ensure proficiency in that minute.
Clearly, if the officials on VAR can't determine whether or not it's a foul straight away after seeing a couple of different angles, send the referee over to the screen right away... Why is that so hard?
They need to put a timer on these decisions. Make a decision on the field, if the VAR official is still faffing after, say, a minute, the on field decision stands. In this case they did give offside on the field. So it would have still been disallowed. Harshly in my view, but I can see the logic in saying “there isn’t enough evidence to say a clear and obvious error has occurred on field”. It requires a sea change in how they use VAR, but would be a lot more satisfactory I reckon. Infact I’d go a step further. Coaches get 1 call a game so VAR is only used when requested. You get the decision, you retain the call, you lose, then you’re done.
My other Euro bet with Sky Bet went down too evens for every group game for England, Germany and France to have a goal. Along with Cricket defeats for England and Yorkshire (didn't bet on them) it's been a poor day.
I've been half and half on the standard of the refs so far in this tournament. But that was disappointing tonight, and the fact that he's a Prem ref, does make it worse.